Discover the North York Moors National Park 

U should return

31.12.30??? 1930???

​@@kamrankhan-lj1nghes from the future

...

+Licia “licia 1896” Tucci So glad you enjoyed it, come back soon!

surely!

@@licia4539 You’re so lucky that you went there twice!It looks like the moors in Howl’s Moving Castle,wonderful.

What time of year do you go? Asking from Australia. Might see you there!

+Portcullis Sorry to have to disagree with you but the park has to move with the times and the need of the local people. My Grandfather started his working life as a blacksmiths striker at the Rosedale mine workings in 1900. The area was a hive of industry and has shaped the landscape for years to come. The moors are un-natural and man managed to fit the needs of shooting. Go back further in time and the area was totally wooded. Times change and must continue to do so, that is why we have a deep history. The moor tops are covered in flint pits, an early form of mining. Would you have stood up in the stone age and shouted stop your ruining the landscape! History is a continuous process and needs to keep moving. Not frozen. If you try to freeze an area in time then you lose history for future generations to come. I have been part of the Iron and Steel industry in East Cleveland. Very little sign is left of the mining, but it is there if you look. Just as it is in Rosedale. Boulby Potash mine is on my doorstep. It is a vital employer in the area but one day will be gone leaving it's stamp too on local history, much in the same way that the Alum workings on the nearby cliffs have done. You may not like things in the now, But if the industry of our past had been stopped we would not have this wonderful area as it is today.

+snowmansid So, please can you tell me- what exactly is the point of a National Park, or more specifically, the designation of an area of landscape as a National Park? I know only too well that most of the moorland would once have been under tree cover before it was cleared for farming (not shooting, that came many centuries later). It was mainly grazing by sheep that prevented woodland from becoming re-established. I would be delighted to see some areas of moorland return to woodland as it would not only provide a more diverse habitat (most moorlands are home to a limited range of specialist species) but it would reduce upland soil erosion and help to alleviate flooding in the lowlands. Virtually the whole of the English landscape has been changed by human activities. I believe that the North Yorkshire Moors were designated as a National Park in the 1950s to protect and enhance the landscape, so the historical examples of mining that you quote are not really relevant here. The National Parks were set-up at a time when it was becoming obvious that the countryside was under growing pressure from development and urbanisation to protect our very best landscapes for the present and future generations. I am familiar with the remains of nineteenth century lead mining in the Yorkshire Dales and North York Moors National Parks- yes they provided employment and raw materials at the time, and more than a century later there are ugly scars all over the uplands as a lasting reminder. In some case the land is still too scarred and polluted for plant growth to re-colonise, and lead pollution of soil and watercourses is still a problem-it certainly "left its stamp on local history". Of course there has to be change, and landowners have to earn a living, but it is a National Park, so land use should be sustainable. I have never come across any type of mining that was sustainable, unless the definition of the word 'mining' has recently changed. The argument that it will provide local jobs is a flimsy one. I would imagine that there will be some short term construction jobs initially, but then it will be mainly specialised work as the landscape is plundered for its precious potash. There is also the question of a precedent being set for similar planning applications in the other National Parks-it will now be more difficult for all National Park Planning Committees to turn down similar potentially destructive planning applications for mining, hydro-fracking or drilling for fossil fuels. The National Parks constitute a tiny fraction of the British landscape; if we can't protect them from potentially destructive development, what hope is there for the rest of the countryside?

+Portcullis "please can you tell me- what exactly is the point of a National Park" A good question that will have as many answers as people that you ask. For me the point of the park is to protect the natural beauty of the area for all the nation to enjoy. This does not though prohibit normal growth and development. It just means that any development within the park requires more scrutiny to ensure minimal impact. People need employment and the region needs an economy that is not just based on tourism. Whatever the future of the park it will be a fudge of many ideas and needs, and I am happy with that. No one persons view should hold sway. A diversity of development in a sensitive way will ensure the continued life and community that the area needs to thrive. Whitby is now a theme park in all but name. Gone are the large ships and port. The fishing fleet is all but gone, the fish quay will no doubt go soon. The whole reason for the town being there originally will be lost. New employment is needed for the local people. If it takes a mine to provide long-term employment for the community then in my view so be it. The park will still be here when we are dead and gone. We will have made our small mark. It is these marks of man down the years that have made the park what it is today. Lets keep it that way, it's worked out well so far.

So, let me get this right- the world's biggest potash mine (as we are told it is going to be) constitutes, in your view, "normal growth and development" and is perfectly acceptable in a National Park, even though National Parks are often quoted as "The Jewels In The Crown" of the British landscape. Surely any mine that is quoted as "the world's biggest" (whatever the mineral involved) would be questionable even on a brownfield site? You say that "a variety of development in a sensitive way will ensure the continued life and community that the area needs to survive". It will be interesting to see just how "sensitive" this mine is (IF it goes ahead-it is still not a certainty). Why stop at the world's biggest potash mine? If jobs, which seem to justify any type of development these days, are more important than landscapes, why not build a six lane motorway through the Park, a new town, open it up to hydro-fracking and a nuclear power station? Extreme examples to illustrate a point perhaps, but with the recent relaxation of planning laws and the current Government's contemptuous attitude towards the countryside, maybe not so far-fetched. I admit that the current management of National Parks is far from ideal, and I do sometimes wonder whether it is right to have small special areas designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, or National Nature Reserves while the rest of the countryside is seen as unimportant and left at the mercy of developers and intensive farming. To me, this is an admission of failure- i.e. we need 'special' areas to be 'protected' (they aren't actually protected from development and mismanagement) because the rest of the countryside is too polluted and degraded for many species to survive. In reality, most nature reserves and S.S.S.I. sites are far too small to sustain viable populations of the more specialised mammal and bird populations, even if they are well managed. If the wider countryside is unfit for many species (and it is-in many areas we have created a slum ecology where the adaptable species such as scavengers can thrive and specialists and sensitive species cannot), and S.S.S.I.'s and nature reserves are too small, that leaves National Parks as the last refuge for many species. Even in the National Parks, moorland specialist species such as hen harriers have been illegally persecuted by the grouse shooting lobby to the point of extinction as a breeding species in England. So things are far from perfect as they are, and unsustainable development (ALL mining is, by definition, unsustainable) is only going to further degrade the landscape; a landscape that is designated as the one of the most important in the whole country.

@@portcullis5622 looks like they've run out of money ...... so far.........

Yes they do, but surprisingly few like to eat grass.

I do, but it was in the middle of San Antonio……..?

Yogi or Barnaby?

Oh it's you again. I thought I told you last time to clear off and don't come back. Unfriendly indeed. The cheek of it.

So you're going back to Scotland, uh?